DISCLAIMER

DISCLAIMER:I do not attempt to be polite or partisan in my articles, merely truthful. If you are a partisan and believe that the letter after the name of a politician is more important then their policies, I suggest that you stop reading and leave this site immediately--there is nothing here for you.

Modern American politics are corrupt, hyper-partisan, and gridlocked, yet the mainstream media has failed to cover this as anything but politics as usual. This blog allows me to post my views, analysis and criticisms which are too confrontational for posting in mainstream outlets.

I am your host, Josh Sager--a progressive activist, political writer and occupier--and I welcome you to SarcasticLiberal.blogspot.com

Sunday, September 30, 2012

In the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the
Bush administration enacted controversial and brutal detention and
interrogation programs. Under direction from the executive branch, a combined
effort by the United States military and intelligence apparatuses created a
system where “suspected terrorist” were captured, held without trial, and
tortured. These programs flew in the face of both international and United
States laws, and have resulted in massive anti-American outrage abroad.

During the post-9/11 Bush years, people captured by
the United States under suspicion of terrorist activities or who were thought
to have information about terrorist groups were indefinitely detained. In
addition to those captured by US military forces, this program was also used
upon people abducted by the CIA and those who were given to the USA under the
bounty program for “terrorists”. Unlike in detentions based upon civil laws
(imprisonment under criminal charges) or rules of international conflicts
(detention of prisoners of war), those detained by the Bush administration were
held as “enemy combatants” and were not afforded any rights; these individuals
could be held for unlimited amounts of time, be denied any legal process or civil
rights, and be subjected to torture. The legal fiction of the “enemy combatant”
status was utilized by the Bush administration to create a group of people who
they could treat in an unaccountable manner—as they were neither prisoners of
war nor civil prisoners, they had few guaranteed rights and the Bush administration
could justify their harsh treatment.

The creation of the “enemy combatant” language and
the accompanying detention program represent a terrible departure from the
standards of the American legal system. The detention of individuals, without
trial, for extended periods of time, and in terrible conditions, violates the
constitutional protections of the 4th, 5th, 6th,
and 8th Amendments—unfortunately, as these individuals were in the
legal no-man’s-land of the “enemy combatant” status and were held outside of
the country, the Bush administration had a legal fig-leaf to cover the fact
that they were eviscerating the constitution.

Legally speaking, there is little that can be done
to punish the Bush administration for its use of indefinite detention on
suspected terrorists. The actions of the executive branch during the Bush years—and,
to a lesser degree, the Obama administration—are morally reprehensible and
deeply embarrassing to all fair-minded Americans, but they don’t constitute
prosecutable crimes; the immunity enjoyed by the executive branch in matters foreign
policy shields them from criminal prosecutions stemming from policy choices
made in good faith (Those in the execute branch are extremely difficult to
prosecute for crimes that they commit while doing their jobs). In the future,
Americans will likely look back upon the indefinite detention program of the United
States and see it in much the way we look at the Japanese internment program of
the mid-twentieth century: a national disgrace and illustration of how our
country can make terrible moral choices while in the thrall of fear.

While the indefinite detention program may be
difficult to prosecute, the torture program which was attached to it is far
more clear-cut. During most of the Bush years, the United States implemented a torture
program which operated in a series of lawless and secret prisons. Many of the
individuals who were indefinitely detained by the United States were subjected
to cruel and inhumane treatment during their detention.

It is now common knowledge that the United States
military and intelligence organizations practiced many recognized torture techniques
during the Bush administration. By reverse-engineering interrogation techniques
from the US military SERE program (Survival Evasion Resistance Escape), the
Bush administration created a torture program which would rival that of any
repressive regime. A variety of techniques, most of which are expressly
forbidden by international and US domestic laws, were implemented against “suspected
enemy combatants”. As if the use of torture weren’t bad enough, most of those
subjected to these techniques were innocent, yet had never been afforded any
legal process to prove their innocence. Here are examples of several techniques
that the USA utilized which are considered torture:

·“Water-Boarding” – A torture technique
that simulates drowning and causes extreme stress on the body; the United
States has long-considered this interrogation technique a form of torture and previously
executed several Japanese officers for water-boarding Americans during WWII.

·“Stress Positions” – Forcing prisoners
to maintain uncomfortable positions for extended periods of time is a form of
torture; it causes extreme pain and eventually can result in nerve/joint
damage.

·Beatings – Beating prisoners is among
the most common tortures utilized by repressive regimes; unfortunately, the USA
has utilized a widespread program of interrogation where “head-slapping” and “throwing
prisoners against walls” are accepted interrogation techniques.

It is absolutely inarguable that the tortures
authorized by the Bush Administration were illegal and should be prosecuted to
the full extent of the law. Torture is an extremely serious crime under
American domestic law, and is considered a war crime under the Geneva Convention—under
both legal standards torture is punishable by a maximum sentence of life in
prison. There is no legal excuse that would protect a politician who orders
torture, either in US or international law, and it is shameful that the Bush administration
has gotten away without consequences.

The American people were largely ignorant of the American
detention and torture programs for years, but even when it was reported in the
news, there was no significant backlash against politicians. Much of the
outrage that should accompany these programs was mitigated by the fact that these
programs were very rarely used upon Americans and the Bush administration
endlessly proclaimed that the people being detained were the “worst of the
worst” and dangerous terrorists. As many Americans were afraid of another 9/11,
they stifled their outrage at our government’s actions and tolerated our
government’s betrayal of our values.

Not only is there substantial evidence that the Bush
administration created a torture program, but we also have comments by the
highest officials of the Bush administration that virtually brag about the
implementation of torture. In his book “Decision Points”, President George W.
Bush claims that his response to being asked to authorize water-boarding was
simply “Damn Right”. Vice President Dick Cheney, a self-admitted architect of
the US torture program, has admitted several times in interviews that “I was a
big supporter of water-boarding”. The Bush officials’ absolute lack of shame
(if not the presence of pride) surrounding the American torture program reflects
very badly upon us, as a country—if we desire any international credibility on
the issue of human rights, the United States must begin by punishing our own
abusers.

Whether in
the courts of the United States justice system or in the war crimes tribunals
of the world court, the criminals of the Bush administration must be brought to
justice. Ultimately, it may be politically impossible to prosecute an
ex-president within the United States, but it is certainly possible to transfer
all evidence to the international courts and avail the Bush administration officials
to their jurisdiction. A refusal to prosecute torture, merely because the
criminals are our former leaders, is an abrogation of the rule of law and an
invitation to future abuses. The fact that those who committed the crime of
torture were elected officials doesn't mitigate their crimes rather, it makes
it that much worse: not only did these people torture, but they did so in our
names. Unless we swiftly punish these criminals, there will be a terrible
precedent set, where those in power are given the right to violate our most
sacred laws and simply walk away without fear of legal consequence.

Thursday, September 27, 2012

For
the purposes of this prediction, I assume that the 2012 election results in a
divided government: Obama has been reelected, the Democrats control the Senate,
and the Republicans control the House. For details on the justifications behind
these predictions, please refer to the “2012 Predictions” section above this
one.

In the face of a major election, people tend to get
tunnel vision and fail to look at what will happen after the election is over. Ultimately,
while every election is important, the negotiations and interactions of elected
officials and parties after the elections are decided are vitally important. If
government becomes dysfunctional, then a small minority of politicians is often
able to stall progress and prevent an elected majority from pursuing their
agenda. Unfortunately, modern politics have become so polarized, and those on
the right so extreme, that an Obama reelection will likely result significant
conflict in Washington.

When Obama is reelected, the Republicans will utilize
every possible opportunity to prevent his second term from being successful—this
includes blocking legislation as well as ensuring that blame for the pain of
the American people is placed squarely upon Obama. They will attempt to prevent
any meaningful legislation from passing into law and will take every chance
that they can to undermine the Obama agenda.

The primary goal of the Republican Party’s
obstruction of the Obama agenda is to prevent any liberal, or even moderate,
policies from being signed into law. The conservative movement has swung so far
right that moderate policies, even those that they created in previous decades,
have become intolerable (ex. the individual mandate). The modern Republican
Party isn’t just extreme, but it has also become captured by wealthy/corporate
interests. As these interests don’t want their taxes increased, nor do they
want any sort of regulations which would cut into their profits (ex.
worker/environmental/consumer protections), the Republican Party will do
everything within its power to stop Democrats from enacting these policies. Because
any significant deviance from the conservative movement’s extreme-right wing
agenda is politically fatal to a Republican politician (due to primary
challenges), it is unlikely that many Republicans will reach across the picket
line and deal with Democrats.

In addition to stalling the passage of a Democratic
agenda for the sake of policy, Republicans will attempt to set up a favorable
playing field for the 2014 midterm elections as well as the 2016 presidential
election. If they can prevent Democrats from being seen as successful and
exacerbate the pain of the American people, it will create a situation where
the Republicans have the ability to sweep into power during the next electoral
cycles; massive voter dissatisfaction creates a climate where the party which
is not in power has the Just as the
terrible failures and low approval ratings of the Bush presidency brought a
wave of Democrats into power during 2008, the Republicans hope to create a
similar situation which will benefit them.

The Republican Party will utilize four main tactics
in order to achieve their agenda—Obstruct, Extort, Impugn, and Blame:

Obstruct

During Obama’s first term, particularly in the
post-2010 election years, the Republicans have utilized every obstructionist
tactic that they have access to. Obstructionist stalling tactics are aimed at
slowing down the government’s decision-making process to the point where it
stops functioning; these tactics may not allow a party to pass its agenda, but
they are often extremely effective in preventing opposing parties from enacting
their agenda. While there are a wide
variety of ways that partisans can obstruct policymaking, here are a few of the
more common examples:

Stalling
legislation in committee (as was done to the ACA)

Declining
to bring legislation up for a vote (as has happened in the House with Democratic
legislation from the Senate)

Maintaining
a perpetual filibuster

Stalling
bills through the addition of numerous amendments (each amendment must be voted
upon, thus this can take up huge amounts of time)

Manipulating
vote scheduling on order to increase the time it takes to pass legislation (ex.
postponing votes until after vacations)

In the American legislature, a majority isn’t needed
for many of these types of obstructionism—a committed and highly partisan minority
block of politicians can easily disrupt the legislative process. Unfortunately,
it appears that the modern Republican Party is both willing and able to
obstruct governmental processes in service to their agenda.

By leveraging their control over the House, the
Republicans will continue to block every piece of legislation that the Democrats
bring forth. We will see the Republican majority in the House utilize parliamentary
rules and scheduling in order to prevent any Democratic legislation from
passing or, in many cases, even being voted upon. Even when Democratic legislation
from the Senate is brought to a vote, it is unlikely that it will pass the
unified front of Republican opposition.

In the Senate, the Republican minority will continue
its overuse of the filibuster, thus preventing the Democratic majority from
passing significant legislation. While it will be possible for the Democratic
majority to pass legislation using reconciliation (a process to pass certain
legislation with a simple majority), or through heavy compromising with the
Republican majority, it is unlikely that any liberal legislation will pass this
roadblock.

Extort

In the past several years, the Republican Party has
utilized a strategy of extorting policy concessions from the Democrats in
exchange for fixing crises which they cause. While they are in the minority,
the Republicans have enough power to prevent vital legislation from passing and
are able to cause significant disruption to the operation of government. Through
utilizing this power to disrupt the government, the Republicans have forced the
Democrats to make concessions just to pass things that, in normal years, would
be bipartisan and uncontroversial.

Here are two examples of this tactic from 2011 and
2012:

During
the fight over the extension of the Bush tax cuts in December of 2011, the
Republicans refused to extend unemployment benefits unless the Bush taxes were
extended for those making over $250,000. In this situation, the Republicans
literally held the economic welfare of the poor hostage (and risked putting the
country into recession), in order to preserve tax cuts on the rich.

During
the 2011 fight over the debt ceiling increase, the Republican Party attempted
to force draconian cuts on entitlements/social programs in exchange for
allowing the debt ceiling to be increased. A failure to increase the debt
ceiling is economically irresponsible and would lead to a government default,
thus it is wholly inappropriate to use it as a political lever.

By creating a situation where the country, or at
least a significant portion of the population, will be harmed unless action is
taken, a minority party is able to compel the majority to act. If the majority
ignores the crisis created by the minority and it harms the country, the
minority can blame the majority (they are in power) and get a PR win. If the
majority decides to deal with the minority in order to fix the engineered crisis,
then the minority is able to extract policy concessions from the majority that
would otherwise be impossible.

After Obama is reelected, there is no reason to
assume that the Republicans will stop utilizing their hostage-taking tactics.
As they will still control the House and enough of the Senate to filibuster, the
Republicans will be able to disrupt the government enough that their
hostage-taking will remain effective. Throughout Obama’s second term, we will see
the Republicans engineer a string of crises in order to compel the Democrats in
the Senate and executive branch to acquiesce to Republican demands.

Unfortunately, there is no effective way to combat
political hostage-taking by a political party other than to make sure that the
guilty party receives most of the blame—the separation of powers and the
protections of the partisan minority built into our legislative structure allow
an irresponsible party to abuse their power in this way. The primary reasons
that this tactic hasn’t been more common are that it is irresponsible and only
utilizable by a party which cares more about installing its policy than the
welfare of the country.

Impugn

During Obama’s second term, the Republicans will make
every effort to attack his character, as well as that of everybody associated
with him. These attacks will not be based in reality and are extensions of the
right wing frustration that they lost and will be unable to rid themselves of
Obama for four more years.

These are a few attacks that Obama and the Democrats
will face the most during the 2012-2016 presidential term:

Being labeled as a socialist:
The accusation of supporting socialism is a common right wing attack on people
who are to their left. Unfortunately, the lack of public understanding of what
actually constitutes socialism has led for this attack to be somewhat effective
and has resulted in many people thinking that the current Democrats are far
farther left than they really are.

Being labeled as an extremist:
Because the right wing has pulled the political spectrum so far to the right, most
leftist policies to be suggested will be considered radical and extreme policies.
I predict that the rightward trend will continue and that the right wing will
label everything that Obama suggests as radical, even if they recently
supported it (such as what happened with the individual mandate).

Challenges to individuals’ “Americanism”:
A common attack by the right wing is that their opponents aren't “real
Americans”, “patriots”, or “possessing “American values”. These accusations are
really coded attacks on opponents that actually mean: “not white”, “not blindly nationalistic” and “not Christian
conservative”. Due to the longstanding use of these attacks by conservatives,
it is virtually certain that they will continue to be a significant line of
attack during Obama’s second term.

Accusations that Obama is apologizing
for the USA: Throughout his first term, Obama has
been besieged with accusations that he is apologizing for the USA when he
speaks abroad; these accusations are simply false and exist as a straw-man
argument to attack the president with in the absence of any major foreign
relations blunders. Barring a significant foreign relations blunder that is
actually based in reality, I see no reason why the right wing will do anything
but intensify this line of attack on the president into his second term.

By feeding the public a steady dose of accusations
against Democrats, coded attacks on Obama, and misinformation against
Democratic policies, the Republicans will attempt to poison the American people
against the Democratic Party. The blind hatred that most conservatives have for
Obama, combined with their frustrated helplessness over losing the election,
will exacerbate the frequency and extremity of these attacks far beyond what we
have seen directed at past politicians.

In addition to making every effort impugn Obama in
the public, I predict that House Republicans will attempt to open numerous investigations
and begin a campaign to impeach Obama within a year of Obama’s reelection. I
don’t know what the attempt to impeach Obama will be based upon, but I predict
that it will originate from a Tea Party congressman and will result in nothing
more than several weeks of controversy.

Throughout the next few years, we will see numerous
political witch-hunts started by right wing partisans in an attempt to bring
down Obama and anybody allied with him. While I predict that these with-hunts
will become more common in Obama’s second term, we have already seen several examples
of this type of persecution during Obama’s first term. The “fast and furious”
scandal—a completely manufactured and specious attack on Eric Holder for a DOJ
program gone wrong—is the best example of such a witch-hunt and it is
indicative of the types of “scandal” that we will see in the future. It is
likely that none of these scandals will actually amount to anything, but they
will result in a lot of bad press for the Obama administration and will dog him
for the duration of his second term.

Blame

During the next four years, the Republicans are
going to spend a great deal of time attempting to shift public opinion away
from the Democrats. They will blame everything that they can on Obama and the
Democratic Party so that by 2016, (the next major election cycle), the
Democrats are as unpopular as the Republicans were in 2008. Through convincing
the public that the Democrats are to blame for everything wrong with the
country, the Republicans will try to gloss over the failure of their policies
while simultaneously positioning themselves for significant wins during the
next presidential election. If they manage to drive Obama’s poll numbers down
to the mid-twenties (like Bush was in 2008), the next Democrat to be running for
president will likely be at a significant disadvantage against their Republican
challenger.

As the media has largely neglected fact-checking of modern
political attacks, the Republican blame machine will completely disregard
reality in order to achieve its goal. Republicans will automatically label anything
that goes wrong as a Democratic failure and everything that goes correctly as a
Republican success, regardless of the facts.

Put plainly: the Republicans will attempt to link
literally every hardship, policy failure, and international incident that
affects the United States during the next four years to the Democrats and to
Obama’s presidency.

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

This is Part #1 of a two part article: Part #1 deals with my predictions as to the results of the 2012 national elections while Part #2 deals with my predictions of what the Republican response to the elections will be

Presidential:
When one considers the recent likely voter poll numbers, it appears that Obama
has a very good chance of being re-elected during the 2012 election. These
polls show that Obama not only holds a national lead, but also significant leads
Florida,
Ohio, and Virginia. Romney’s Libya embassy comments and the mid-September
release of the “47% Tape” are both significant strikes against his candidacy
and only solidify the prediction that the Romney candidacy will result in
failure. I predict that Obama will win the election by carrying the swing
states of Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, and
Michigan. Romney will lose the election, but will carry the states of Florida
(depending upon voter disenfranchisement measures), North Carolina, and New
Hampshire.

Senate:
While polling at the beginning of 2012 suggested that Republicans would retake
the Senate, it now appears that momentum has stalled and that the Republicans
are unlikely to make significant gains. I predict that Democrats will hold onto
the senate in 2012, and will remain in control without a super-majority (it is
impossible for the Democrats to capture 60 seats)—the likely result of the
elections is that between 51 and 53 Democrats (counting Bernie Sanders as a
Democrat) and 49-47 Republicans will be elected to the Senate in 2012.

House:
During the 2010 election, the Republicans and Tea Party (inasmuch as there is
any real distinction) took a vast majority of the House and swept many
Democrats and moderate Republicans out of office; this right wing tide was
largely due to Democratic demobilization and high levels of Republican voter
turnout, thus it is unsustainable for the 2012 election. Since getting into
office, these congressman have become immensely unpopular and have presided
over the lowest public opinion numbers of any congress in the history of public
opinion polling (by some polls, they had a 9% approval rating at their lowest).
Due to the presidential coattails effect, Democratic voters will come out to
vote in 2012 at much higher numbers than in 2010 and control of the house will
become contested. I predict that the Republicans will retain the house, but
only by a margin of less than ten seats (probably on the lower side of this
prediction).\; the areas which they suffer most will be the marginal areas
(purple states) where a disproportionately large amount of Republicans were
elected during the 2010 election.

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

In modern American politics, conservatives across
the country near-universally support the ideal of “small” or “limited”
government. In invoking the idea of a small government, conservatives attempt
to paint the picture of a large, intrusive, wasteful, and ineffective
government that they are trying to reign in and make effective. Oftentimes
these conservatives claim that government is the thing holding the United
States back, thus simply removing regulations, cutting “wasteful” program and reducing
taxes will result in success for all Americans. Unfortunately, the conservative
ideal of “small government” is merely a fantasy, created by conservative elites
as a smokescreen for the true intentions of the conservative movement.

In reality, the modern American conservative’s ideal
of “small government” manifests through the cutting of programs which don’t
benefit the wealthy individuals and special interests that fund the
conservative movement—examples of such programs include entitlements, welfare,
environmental/worker protections, and education. Because the people who lead
the conservative movement are motivated primarily by “enlightened self-interest”
(Read: greed), and garner no benefit from programs which help the poor/middle
classes, these conservative elites see such programs as wasteful “big
government”. Once the elites who run the conservative movement determine which
programs are useful to them and which should be labeled as “waste”, they propagate
this determination down to the average conservative individual; as these
individuals have little to no knowledge of the actual effects of policy, the
conservative elites have little problem convincing the rank and file conservative
to vote against their own interests in favor of the interests of the elites.

Put
plainly: conservatives want a country where they get big government
benefits and small government restrictions, while imposing small government benefits
and big government restrictions on everybody else.

Programs which prevent wealthy individuals and corporations
from exploiting others are held in particular contempt by modern conservative elites.
Regulatory bodies such as the EPA and the FDA, as well as numerous worker
protection laws have endured incessant conservative attacks over the past
decade, despite the very real good that they do for society. These programs not
only “waste” money on helping the poor, but are specifically designed to interfere
with the wealth entity’s “freedom” to act as they see fit. In protecting the
rights of society, these programs prevent those with power from exploiting or
harming others for a profit; conservative elites (many of whom are the
exploiters) see this intervention as an attack on their “liberty” and will do
virtually anything to remove these obstacles.

In the minds of conservatives, money which is “wasted”
on things that other people rely upon is simply money that could be given to
them in the form of a tax break. By this mindset, the individual simply doesn’t
care about the needs of their neighbor and is content only when they are exempted
from paying into any program which they don’t receive a direct benefit from. An
utter lack of empathy into the situations and needs of others has become and
endemic characteristic of the modern conservative movement to an extreme which
has never been seen in the history of the ideology.

With social issues, particularly surrounding gay rights
and abortion, we see an illustration of the conservative “small government” fiction.
Despite claiming to support a small and unobtrusive government, the
conservative movement has pushed heavily for increased governmental regulations
on personal activities that they find objectionable—gay marriage and abortion
rights being the most common things that modern conservatives decry and attempt
to legislate away. These conservatives don’t see these restrictions as “big government
overreach” simply because such regulations don’t overreach into THEIR lives,
only the lives of others. The conservative hypocrisy in the realm of social
issues is indicative of their ideological mindset and gives us a clear look
into the conservative views on the size of government.

While there is a legitimate argument about the size
and scope of government to be had, the modern conservative movement is not even
attempting to make this argument. Rather than pushing for a truly limited
government, the modern conservative movement promotes a government which gives
its members big government benefits while ensuring that everybody else only receives
a small government pittance; small government regulations are put on to guns,
religious institutions, and civil rights, while big government restrictions are
imposed upon gays, women, and atheists. This vision is a product of a selfish
minority and all Americans should reject it on its premise, regardless of
ideological vision.

Thursday, September 13, 2012

The war in Iraq was promoted by the Bush
administration to be a direct response to the 9/11 terrorist attack and a
preventative measure against the Iraqi regime utilizing weapons of mass
destruction against their enemies (the USA and Israel). As we know now, these
justifications were wholly falsified by the Bush administration and the war in
Iraq was a neo-conservative endeavor that had nothing to do with the events of
9/11—these justifications were not an error or honest misinterpretation, but
rather intentional fabrications aimed at pushing the USA into an unnecessary
war. Reputable sources have reported that the Bush administration’s foreign
policy team had been planning a pre-emptive war on Iraq from the start of the
Bush presidency, months before the 9/11 terrorist attack.

The use of the 9/11 terrorist attack to justify an
unrelated war is not only negligent and immoral, but it is also arguably a
criminal offense. If the administration lied to congress in order to get them
to sign a declaration of war, then they are guilty of perjury, if not worse
crimes; depending upon the interpretations of federal law, it is arguable that,
since the perjury of these officials led to deaths, the perjurer is guilty for
the deaths. Individuals have been prosecuted for 1st degree murder
under federal law when their perjured statements intentionally led to the
deaths of others. As starting a war will inevitably lead to deaths (whether of
Americans or the other country’s citizens), it is inarguable that the lies
which led to the Iraqi war represent potential criminal charges. If
murder-by-perjury charges have been applied in cases of a single death, then
why has it not been applied for a larger lie, which led to a correspondingly
larger amount of deaths? The simple answer is politics, and the setting of a
precedent that would threaten future politicians if they choose to kill people
with lies.

Dick Cheney in particular bears significant blame
for the war in Iraq, and the misery which this war has caused. Cheney was not
only a major proponent of the war but the evidence seems to indicate that he
had alternative motives for starting the war. Halliburton, the company that
Cheney once was CEO of (and which he still has a financial interest in),
received billions of dollars in government contracts as a direct result of the
war. While collusion has yet to be proven (or even investigated), it appears
that Cheney had a strong financial incentive to start a war in Iraq.

In addition to the Halliburton conflict held by
Cheney, it also bears mentioning that Cheney was engaged in private talks with
oil company personnel regarding Iraqi oil months before 9/11. As explained in this
article from DailyKos, leaks of documents related to these closed-door
meetings seem to indicate a plot by Cheney and oil executives from several
corporations to negotiate contracts for the Iraqi oil fields; these meetings
seem to indicate the assumption that the US government would have control over
the Iraqi oil fields within several years, something that would be impossible
without an invasion. Given the content of these meetings before the attack of
9/11, it is virtually inarguable that Cheney was aiming to intentionally start
a war for profit and simply exploited the terrorist attacks to facilitate his
plans.

If the Iraq war was started under false pretenses
(as the evidence point to), then it represents a truly historic example of
negligent homicide—those in power knew that thousands of civilians and American
troops would die due to their reckless and dishonest conduct, yet they
continued to act anyway. To make this situation worse, the negligent conduct appears
to have been motivated not by ideology but by a cold calculation, trading
American lives for oil company profits. Unfortunately, as the executive branch has
widespread immunity and can obscure their intentionally dishonest conduct as
simple incompetence, it is unlikely that these crimes will be prosecuted.
Unless proof of the motives and intent to start the war for profit is found
during an investigation (one that hasn’t happened yet), it is very unlikely
that the Bush administration officials will be convicted.

In order to pursue justice for those killed during
the Iraq War, the United States Department of Justice should begin a full
investigation into all aspect of the lead-up to war. Every document should be
reviewed and the private sector individuals involved in these meetings should
be squeezed for information. Hopefully, the threat of prosecution will cause a
break in the chain somewhere and will provide evidence that the war in Iraq was
an intentional fraud geared only to profit a select few individuals. When an
individual kills somebody for money, they are prosecuted and can spend the rest
of their lives in jail—we, as a country, cannot let those who we trust with
power kill thousands of people for money, yet walk away without consequence.

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

The "just following orders" excuse is not an acceptable defense for war crimes and corrupt conduct.

On the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist
attack, it is important to look back and reflect upon the day which pushed our
country down a very dark path. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon killed over 3000 Americans and have resulted in debilitating health
consequences for the first responders who were exposed to toxic chemicals—hundreds
of these brave individuals have developed cancers and respiratory problems and
are still in need of treatment. The largest terrorist attack in American history
not only killed our citizens, but it brought about widespread fear, paranoia,
and a willingness to do virtually anything to feel safe again.

While it is wrong to minimize the loss of life which
came from the 9/11 terrorist attack, arguably the most serious damage done by
this attack did not come from the planes flying into buildings, but rather our response
to this attack. The American people shut their eyes and let their government do
immoral, unethical, and un-American things in their name, all under the aegis
of preventing future attacks; pointless wars were started, killing thousands
more innocents. Our country began detaining people without due process and
torturing them. An American security state was created and egregious laws, such
as the Patriot Act, were signed into law.

With the death of Osama Bin Laden and the virtual
dismantling of the Al Qaida terrorist network, the terrorists who conspired to
kill our civilians and create terror in our population were brought to justice.
While it took many years longer, and cost us much more blood and treasure, that
it could have, the architects of the 9/11 terrorist attack were punished for their
crimes against the United States. Unfortunately, the individuals who used the
tragedy of 9/11 to push an ideological agenda and justify the widespread
breaking of laws in our names have not been punished, and may be allowed to
walk free.

Certain elements within the Bush administration used
the tragic deaths of thousands of Americans to justify their extreme agenda and
excuse the subversion of the rule of law. As of yet, the Obama administration
has refused to act upon the clear evidence implicating members of the Bush
White House in official misconduct, war crimes, and the disregard of American
lives in favor of a political agenda. With this unfortunate refusal to apply
the law, even to ex-politicians, future administrations will be able to point
back and say “if torture is illegal, why weren’t they prosecuted?” They will be
able to act in disregard of the law, secure in the fact that precedent protects
them from the legal consequences of their actions.

In order to stop the guilty members of the Bush administration
from walking away and to prevent this terrible precedent from being set, The
Obama Administration must begin legal proceedings aimed at charging the guilty.
The fact that Bush administration officials utilized their official power to
break the law, commit war crimes, and tell lies which resulted in multiple
deaths, does not exempt them from consequences—rather, it makes the pursuit of
justice even more vital. These people committed crimes in our, the American
peoples’, names and we should not be willing to let them slide. Americans need
to protest and demand that everybody, regardless of partisanship or position,
pay for their crimes and be held accountable under the law.

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

In order to be successful in the
long term, the progressive movement must promote ideas and ideological position
rather than simply politicians. If the progressive movement focuses on policies
rather than politicians, then there is a greater chance that progressive
policies will be enacted. Progressive policies can be pushed by any progressive
politician and are not dependent upon the success of a single political race.

This focus on policies over
politicians has three key components:

The progressive movement’s focus should be on
getting progressive policies passed over keeping individual politicians in
office; if an individual politician must take a short term loss in order to
achieve a substantial progressive policy win, then the policy should take
priority over keeping the politician in office.

Once elected, all progressive politicians must
be held to their support of progressive policies. Allowing elected politicians
to ignore their promises creates a situation where many supposedly progressive
politicians are elected, yet few progressive policies are advanced.

The partisan affiliation of a politician should
never overshadow the policies which they support; if we say that something is
immoral and wrong when the opposition does it, then we must not tolerate it when
our own allies act similarly.

The purpose of getting a politician
elected is not simply to win an election, but to have some say in the national/state
policy. In any situation where an individual politician must risk their position
in order to pass a significant progressive policy, the progressive movement
should prioritize the policy over the individual. For example: during the 2009
healthcare fight, the Democratic Party should have put much more pressure on
the Blue Dog/southern Democrats in order to force them to support single payer
healthcare. While these politicians may have lost their next election due to
this support, the passage of such a significant piece of progressive
legislation would be well worth the sacrifice and would endure far longer than
the short term loss of the politicians. Every progressive politician to be
elected should be made to understand that their position is not an end unto
itself, but rather a way of facilitating the passage of progressive policies.

Promoting individual politicians
is ultimately irrelevant when these politicians abandon progressive policies once
in office. If progressives are more attached to individual politicians than
policy positions, then these politicians are able to get away with not
supporting progressive policies. An individual politician is often not totally reliable
and is far less stable than a policy position. Politicians can often be
compelled to compromise their ideology’s policies in order to serve political
games; individual politicians can also be ignored, suffer scandals, have their
character impugned, or lose office. A policy isn’t tied to a human, can be
supported by many politicians, and will often outlast an individual’s political
career.

Once elected into office,
progressive politicians should be held to their support of progressive
policies. If a supposedly progressive politician does not act like a progressive
once in office, they should lose the support of the progressive movement and be
challenged during the next possible primary. When a politician claims to be a
progressive, yet doesn’t support progressive policies, there is no reason why
the progressive movement should consider them an ally, or support them (ex.
Blue Dog Democrats).

The current Democratic Party’s acceptance
of President Obama’s drone campaign has illustrated exactly why a focus on policy
rather than politicians is necessary. When President Bush was utilizing drones,
and sometimes killing civilians, the Democratic Party was visibly outraged. One
would think that, given this outrage, the Democratic president Obama would immediately
begin fixing the flaws in this program which his party was outraged over when
Bush ran it. Unfortunately, this is not the case, as the Obama administration’s
drone program is far more egregious than Bush’s, and has expanded upon the
worst aspects of the Bush drone program—more civilians have been killed, more
drones have been sent into Yemen and Pakistan, and the USA has begun using “signature
strikes” to kill unknown people based upon patterns of behavior. If the drone
program of Bush’s administration is immoral and needs to be protested by
progressives, then Obama’s program is just that much worse. The fact that many
Democrats have been silent about the Obama drone program demonstrates just how
party affiliation can eclipse policy.

In a world where Democrats and
progressives focused upon policy, rather than supporting individual
politicians, Obama would never have dared continue the abuses of the Bush
administration. Upon attempting to continue many of the Bush era policies (ex.
drone strikes, tax cuts, austerity, etc.), he would have lost the support of
his base and would likely have faced a significant primary effort during the 2012
election. In this world, the progressive movement would be able to ensure that
every politician who claims to be a progressive acted like one, even when no
election was imminent.

The conservative movement has
been utilizing this tactic for decades and has been very successful—the promotion
of tax cuts and “trickle-down” economics are two examples of conservative
policy goals which have received particular focus. Conservative politicians are
held to the conservative movement’s ideological goals, or are immediately jettisoned
(ex. pro-choice Republicans are largely extinct). While an extreme party line
is ultimately destructive, as it stifles all compromise, the progressive
movement should adopt a less extreme version of it in order to facilitate
policy wins. Progressive politicians should be allowed some autonomy of beliefs,
but should be expected to conform to a majority of the progressive platform.

Monday, September 3, 2012

Modern American politics has
become flooded with money, most of which supporting politicians who are willing
to sell out to moneyed interests; this money is used to fund gigantic and
widespread ad campaigns that are targeted at changing public opinion. As
progressive policies are less popular among the wealthy and corporate
interests, much of this money has been funneled to groups which directly
compete with progressives. Despite the weighted scales of money between the
conservatives and the progressives, there are large-money donors who are willing
to fund progressives.

Unfortunately, the fact that virtually
every politician has taken money from corporate interests means that any
politician not to do so is at a comparative disadvantage. If a politician is to
fund their campaign through only small donors, they will be overwhelmed by the
large money donors to support their opposition. In the modern political climate,
refusing to take money from large donors is simply an unfeasible political
campaign strategy. While it may feel good for an honest politician to refuse potentially
corrupting money, it is an empty victory if this refusal allows the corrupt
politician to win. This unfortunate situation has forced progressives to ask themselves
the question: “Is it worth standing on principle during a campaign and not
taking big-money, if you know that such acts will ensure that the corrupt
opposition wins election?”

In order to succeed politically, progressives
must raise significant amounts of money with which to fund campaigns. Progressives
should not unilaterally disarm in terms of fundraising, and should take large
money donations from rich individuals and entities. A campaign based upon small
money donations is good in theory, but it will rarely win against a campaign
which has the backing of a single donor who is willing to spend millions (ex.
Sheldon Adelson); the big-money campaign will simply inundate the public with
ads and totally eclipse the small-money campaign.

Despite the fact that many
progressives are extremely hesitant (and rightly so) to take big-money
donations, it has become necessary for survival. Progressives must take money from
large donors, or they will simply be outgunned by corporatist Democrats and
Republicans. It may be impalitable, but this concession is the only way that
progressive will be able to compete at the level of other political groups.

While progressives should never
unilaterally disarm politically, there should be limits on progressive
political conduct that prevent progressives from becoming too much like
conservatives. Progressives should utilize large-donor money but they should
never let donor money have any control over policy or politics—this distinction
is what separates legitimate political patronage from legalized bribery. With
every donation, progressives should make it clear to the donor that the act of
giving money to a campaign will do nothing to affect policy positions by the
politician. In all likelihood, this clarification will limit corporate donation
(corporations only spend money when there is advantage to them), but it will
allow progressives to take large-money donations without compromising their ethics
or values.

Once in power, progressives
should immediately begin a push to remove money from politics through a
constitutional amendment. At the very first opportunity, progressives should remove
money from politics and institute a campaign system which is independent of
donors (strict donation limits or publically financed elections). For as long as
our election system is dependent upon money, progressives must live with the unpleasant
necessity of taking large-money donations; once they succeed in the current
system, progressives should reject the lure of money and begin changing the political
system to be one where big money patronage is illegal.

Anonymous's Last Incarnation

All Credit to DregStudios

Copyright Disclaimer

While I don't quote sources directly, I receive a large amount of information from the sources listed below. All links that I post to my blog are credited to the publisher listed on the video or article.